O n Sept. 14, incumbent Andrew Cuomo defeated progressive challenger and Emmy award- winning actress Cynthia Nixon in the New York gubernatorial Democratic primary election, garnering nearly two-thirds of the total vote. This was by no means a shocking result. The RealClearPolitics polling average projected Cuomo to win by 38.5 percent — his actual margin of victory was about 31.2 percent. Despite Nixon technically exceeding expectations, a Cuomo victory unfortunately seemed from the outset like a foregone conclusion. Nixon’s loss was portrayed as a huge blow to the progressive movement in the mainstream media — and they’re not entirely wrong. Of course, she ran to win and that did not happen. However, to assert her candidacy was totally in vain because of this reality is to fail to understand the extent of her impact and political footprint. The same night of Nixon’s election loss, six progressive candidates were able to topple Independent Democratic Conference incumbents in New York state Senate primaries. These corporatist, out-of- touch, so-called “Democrats” were given a wake-up call and a taste of where the base is at these days. They are tired of Republican-lite. The progressives won because people want real, substantive, positive change. They also won because of Nixon. Though she was not able to secure victory in her race, she served as the flagbearer for progressivism in New York this primary season. In doing so, she was able to change the state’s political landscape. Her influence is largely to thank for these state Senate victories. Nixon, giving a celebrity platform to this policy set, helped to double voter turnout. It also served as the extra push needed to carry down-ballot progressives to victory. Also, in what became dubbed the “Cynthia Effect,” she was able to persuade Cuomo to adopt elements of her platform that he previously opposed. Seeing the immense energy Nixon was raising among base members, Cuomo saw no choice but to try to steal her cadence in order to maintain stamina. For example, despite standing firmly against it during his entire political career, Cuomo came out in favor of legalizing marijuana this election cycle — a position held not just by Nixon but also by about two- thirds of all Americans. Criminal justice reform was one of the focus points of Nixon’s campaign. Her platform included ending cash bail, solitary confinement and the prosecution of children as adults. In response, Cuomo announced a plan of his own to restore voting rights to parolees. Though Cuomo doesn’t go nearly as far as she does, Nixon’s bold policy proposals did, in fact, pull Cuomo leftward. By being principled and steadfast, Nixon forced Cuomo to meet her in the middle. Keep doing this and what is now referred to as “the insurgency” will become the new mainstream. We saw similar thing instances occur with Abdul El-Sayed’s Michigan gubernatorial campaign. Though he was unable to clinch the Democratic nomination, his candidacy still had an effect insofar as moving the party leftward. In response to the energy stirred up by El-Sayed’s campaign, Gretchen Whitmer, the establishment candidate and eventual nominee, chose solid progressive Garlin Gilchrist II as her running mate. Let us not mince words: Had El-Sayed not run, this pick would not have happened. El-Sayed was also extremely popular with young people. His campaign had a huge presence on college campuses throughout the state. He successfully mobilized the next generation of voters and was able to introduce a traditionally apathetic age group into the political process. There are countless other examples of “failed” progressive campaigns that nonetheless had a positive impact on the race as a whole. There are also now countless examples of progressive wins — New York House candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Michigan House candidate Rashida Tlaib and Flordia gubernatorial candidate Andrew Gillum are just a handful that come to mind. These wins should not come as a surprise. Simply put, progressive ideas are popular. For example, 70 percent of Americans support Medicare for all and 66 percent support raising the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour. This is populism in the truest sense of the word. Losing is never easy, but progressives need to come to grips with the fact that they are not the establishment. Though they have made fantastic strides over the past few years, this is still a movement in the building phase. Failures and obstacles are inevitable, but any progressive run for office, regardless of electoral success, is an act of moving the Democratic Party in the right direction — away from corporatism and toward fulfilling the will of the masses. The point in all of this is to say to progressives that, if you are considering running for office, do it. While electoral success is clearly the intended goal, do not let the thought of losing discourage you. To run, regardless of the outcome, is to do the movement, and more importantly the country, an immense service. to do the movement, and more importantly the country, an immense service. Opinion The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com 4 — Thursday, September 20, 2018 Emma Chang Ben Charlson Joel Danilewitz Samantha Goldstein Emily Huhman Tara Jayaram Jeremy Kaplan Lucas Maiman Magdalena Mihaylova Ellery Rosenzweig Jason Rowland Anu Roy-Chaudhury Alex Satola Ali Safawi Ashley Zhang Sam Weinberger DAYTON HARE Managing Editor 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. ALEXA ST. JOHN Editor in Chief ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND ASHLEY ZHANG Editorial Page Editors Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS HANNAH HARSHE | COLUMN The case for vegan pumpkin spice I always try to write my column with the utmost composure and professionalism, but today I just can’t do that. It’s late September, we’re approaching week four of college football season, the trees are bound to start shedding their leaves any moment now. If you can’t guess it already, I want a pumpkin spice latte! What’s the point of fall if you can’t have a PSL? To summarize the above rant: Starbucks, bring vegan pumpkin spice lattes to the United States. Please. I’m begging you. For those of you who choose to spend your time focusing on more substantive global issues, I’ll give you the rundown. In early 2003, a small team gathered in the Starbucks “Liquid Lab” sampling forkfuls of pumpkin pie and sips of espresso. In that fateful room, the Pumpkin Spice Latte was born, the drink that has come to embody crisp leaves, cozy sweaters and all things fall. Part of the perfection of this recipe, however, was the pumpkin spice sauce. Most Starbucks flavored lattes, such as vanilla lattes and caramel macchiatos, involve a syrup. These syrups are completely dairy-free, so most drinks at Starbucks can easily be made vegan by swapping out the dairy milk for almond milk, soy milk or coconut milk. Even their mochas and hot chocolates can be made vegan using this method! This has made Starbucks a popular destination for vegans and dairy intolerant customers for a long time. However, the pumpkin spice latte uses a sauce instead of a syrup, which supposedly makes it heavier, like a mouthful of pumpkin pie. This sauce contains condensed skim milk, meaning even if a dairy-free customer asks for a pumpkin spice latte with soy milk instead of dairy milk, the drink will still contain dairy in the sauce. Essentially, it’s impossible for a customer to order a dairy-free version of this drink. In 2003, when the drink debuted, the dairy ingredient may not have posed a problem. However, in the past 15 years, our culture has changed drastically. The overall dairy alternatives market was estimated at about $7.4 billion in 2016 and is projected to extend to about $14.4 billion by 2022, increasing at a compound annual growth rate of 11.7 percent. In addition, sales of total conventional fluid milk products decreased 6.2 percent from 2016 to 2017, and estimated sales of total organic fluid milk products decreased 5.6 percent from a year earlier. Basically, the market is begging for milk alternatives. To understand just how milk-averse our culture is becoming, look at the non- dairy ice cream industry. When I stopped consuming dairy in 2015, I was hard- pressed to find ice cream to eat. I could find dairy-free sorbet pretty easily, and certain health brands carried dairy-free products that were called “ice cream” but tasted certainly didn’t like it. That was about it. Today, I’m amazed by how large the market has grown. I can walk into Meijer and find almost every ice cream brand in the store has at least a few flavors that don’t contain dairy. Likewise, most ice cream parlors in downtown Ann Arbor and even in the small towns I’ve visited carry some non-dairy options. Most importantly, it tastes like ice cream. My friends who still consume dairy (though they are becoming rarer and rarer) admit they can’t taste the difference between dairy ice cream and non-dairy ice cream. In 2013, someone started a petition called “Please Make The Pumpkin Spice Latte Vegan.” This petition, which is now closed, has 11,631 supporters. Five years ago, before the vegan craze hit our culture, there was a clear demand for vegan pumpkin spice lattes. Progress is being made, let’s be clear. This year Starbucks announced vegan pumpkin spice lattes would be made available across several European countries. This is great news, but I have two major problems with it. The first problem is I don’t live in Europe. The second problem is North America is projected has the fastest growing non- dairy market. Why is Europe the go-to location to launch vegan pumpkin spice lattes? This fall, I have two wishes. The first is for the University of Michigan to beat Ohio State University, and the second is to enjoy a Pumpkin Spice Latte. One of these goals should be easily attainable if the right people decide they want to make it happen. To the team at the Starbucks Liquid Lab: Are you listening? Not all is lost The Accountable Capitalism Act could go further ERIK NESLER | COLUMN A little over a month ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., introduced the Accountable Capitalism Act to Congress. The introduction of the bill made tidal waves in the media after she described its purpose in an eye-opening Op-Ed published by the Wall Street Journal. Warren used the Op-Ed to write about the stark wealth inequality throughout the United States. She claims (rightly so) the private sector has directly caused and perpetuated this inequality by always acting to maximize shareholder returns — an idea made famous by conservative economist Milton Friedman in the 1970s. This idea that companies exist solely to maximize shareholder returns has had drastic effects on the broader economy. Warren includes in her piece that between 2007 and 2016, U.S. corporations dedicated 93 percent of their earnings to shareholders. This transfer of wealth further exacerbates economic inequity when you consider that the wealthiest 10 percent of U.S. households own the vast majority (84 percent) of American-held shares. In addition, Warren writes real wages have not realized relative increases since this ideology took hold in the late 20th century. Companies have chosen to dedicate less and less of their earnings to their employees through pay raises — instead choosing to distribute wealth to shareholders in the form of dividends and share buy- backs. Warren, fed up with this unjust state of affairs, devised a solution. Corporations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue would be required to get a federal corporate charter in addition to having a corporate charter in the state where the entity is incorporated. The new charter would require directors to consider the interests of all major corporate stakeholders when making major strategic decisions. Directors would be allowed to choose alternatives (without fear of litigation) that can potentially destroy value — like choosing to allocate earnings toward expanding employee benefits or toward some philanthropic venture. She also wants employees to elect at least 40 percent of a company’s directors. This would certainly give employees, a stakeholder group that have been historically marginalized and forgotten, a stronger voice in the decision-making process companies must go through. Warren’s proposed alterations to the way companies conduct themselves would make them more similar to B Corporations. B Corporations are for-profit companies that are “legally required to consider the impact of their decisions on their workers, customers, suppliers, community, and the environment.” Businesses can act with itheir conscience without fear of repercussions from their shareholders. One of the most famous B Corporations is Warby Parker, the eyeglass-maker that donates a pair of glasses to those in need with every purchase and maintains carbon-neutral production and distribution activities. Warby Parker’s co-founder Neil Blumenthal told James Surowiecki of The New Yorker, “We wanted to build a business that could make profits. But we also wanted to build a business that did good in the world.” Blumenthal continued, “Your ability to have an impact on a large scale is just greater in the for-profit world, and that’s chiefly because of the capital and the talent available to you.” Considering Warby Parker’s immense success in the past couple of years, it’s clear that businesses can pursue profit while positively impacting society. As Blumenthal put it, the private sector (as opposed to the public sector) has the capacity and potential to be a force for good in our economy. As I read through Warren’s Op-Ed and learned more about B Corporations, I couldn’t help but think of “A World of Three Zeros” by Muhammad Yunus — a book that I read this summer. Yunus, like Warren, is concerned with the increasing wealth concentration. He writes on its risk to society as a whole: “(wealth concentration) threatens human progress, social cohesion, human rights, and democracy.” As the wealth gap grows, dissatisfaction among society inevitably deepens. Yunus agrees with Warren that capitalism — specifically the idea that companies must maximize shareholder value — has led to the wealth disparity experienced throughout the world. He devises a different solution, however. Yunus proposes entrepreneurs create social businesses — non-dividend companies dedicated to solving human problems. His book discusses the various businesses he’s started that provide goods or services which benefit those most in need. He writes extensively about Grameen Bank, the bank he founded to provide micro loans (loans usually less than $100) to impoverished villagers in Bangladesh. Social businesses are unique because directors can operate and make strategic decisions without the burden of being required to maximize shareholder wealth. Investors who provide capital to entrepreneurs starting these businesses are able to get back their initial investments (with a given rate of return accounting for the time value of money), but nothing more. Any profits generated by the business are kept within the firm — either given to employees or used to expand the firm’s reach. Yunus’ social business concept may seem farfetched and radical now, but the idea could (and should) be commonplace in the future. The private sector should be able to produce handsome profits without making the rich richer. While Warren’s Accountable Capitalism Act is a step in the right direction, I believe the private sector should take more drastic action (ideally on their own) toward remedying the devastating wealth gap in today’s society. Elias Khoury can be reached at ekhoury@umich.edu. Erik Nesler can be reached at egnesler@umich.edu. EMILY CONSIDINE | CONTACT EMILY AT EMCONSID@UMICH.EDU It’s clear that businesses can pursue profit while positively impacting society ELIAS KHOURY | COLUMN The progressives won because people want real, substantive, positive change HANNAH HARSHE Hannah Harshe can be reached at hharshe@umich.edu.